Liberalism has been condemned by the Pope in many and various
documents. From these let us select a few epithets which
stigmatize it with unsparing emphasis. They will bring out in
striking relief the perfidious character of this cunning heresy.
In his brief to Mgr. De Segur in regard to the latter's well
known work "Hommage Aux Catholiques Liberaux" the Pope
calls it a perfidious enemy; in his allocution to the Bishop of
Nevers, the present real calamity; in his letter to the Catholic
circle of St. Ambrose of Milan, a compact between injustice and
iniquity; in the same document he speaks of it as more fatal and
dangerous than a declared enemy; in his letter to the Bishop of
Quimper, a hidden poison; in the brief to the Belgians, a crafty
and insidious error; in another brief to Mgr. Gaume, a most
pernicious pest. All these documents from which we quote may be
found in full in Mgr. Segur's book "Hommage, etc."

But Liberalism is always strategically cunning. It rejected
these very plain condemnations (60) on the ground that they had
all been made to private persons; that they were, therefore, of
an entirely private character, by no means ex cathedra, and, of
course, not binding. Heresy is always sophistically obstinate; it
clings to the least pretext, seeks every excuse to escape
condemnation. Barricading itself behind these technical defenses,
Liberalism practically defied the authority of the Church. Its
perfidy was shortlived. A solemn official public document of a
general character and universally promulgated would sweep away
the cobwebs with which Liberal Catholics had endeavored to bind
the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. The Church could not
refuse a formal and decisive word to relieve the anxiety of her
children. That word was spoken; it was the Syllabus of December
8, 1864.

All faithful Catholics hailed it with an enthusiasm only
equaled in intensity by the paroxysm of fury with which the
Liberals received it. Liberal Catholics thought it more prudent
to strike at it covertly by overwhelming it with artificial
interpretations. The Liberals denounced it with unsparing
bitterness; the Liberal Catholics whittled it away by all manner
of emasculating explanations. It was a document fatal to both;
they had reason to fear it, (61) the one execrating it, the other
seeking with desperate subtlety to parry the blow, for the
Syllabus is an official catalogue of the principal errors of the
day in the form of concrete propositions placed under the formal
ban of the Church. In it will be found, succinctly formulated,
the various errors which are met with in the current literature
of the times. The Syllabus crystallizes all these errors and
stamps them with the seal of the explicit and formal condemnation
of the Church. Here we have in detail all the Liberal dogmas.
Although Liberalism may not be expressly named in any one of the
propositions, most of its errors are there placed in pillory.
From the condemnation of each of the Liberal errors results a
condemnation of the whole system. Let us briefly enumerate them.

Condemnation of liberty of worship (propositions 15, 77, and
78); of the placet of governments (propositions 20 and 28); of
the absolute supremacy of the State (proposition 38); of the
secularization of public education (proposition 45, 40 and 48);
of the absolute separation of Church and State (proposition 15);
of the absolute right to legislate without regard to God
(proposition 56); of the principle of nonintervention
(proposition 62); of the right of insurrection (proposition 63);
of civil (pg. 62) marriage (proposition 73 and others); of the
liberty (license) of the press (proposition 79); of universal
suffrage as the source of authority (proposition 60); of even the
name of Liberalism (proposition 88).

There have been books, pamphlets, and articles innumerable
written on the proper interpretation of the propositions of the
syllabus. But the most authoritative interpretation ought to be
that of its radical enemies, not of course in the absurdities of
their misunderstandings or perversions, like Mr. Gladstone's
unfortunate attempt to distort some of its propositions into a
sanction of civil disloyalty, a position from which he has since
withdrawn, we are glad to be able to say. But outside of such
patent misconstructions we may rely upon the interpretation given
by Liberals of all shades, especially in those points wherein we
see them wince under its uncompromising phraseology. When
Liberals regard it as their most detestable enemy, as the
complete symbol of what they term Clericalism, Untramontanism and
Reaction, we may rest assured that it has been well interpreted
in that quarter. Satan, bad as he is, is not a fool, and sees
clearly enough where the blow falls with most effect. Thus he has
set the authority of his seal, which after god's is most
reliable, on this great work, (63) the seal of his
inextinguishable hate. Here is an instance in which we can
believe the father of lies. What he most abhors and defames
possesses an unimpeachable guaranty of its truth.